Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: The 20 Pounds Ex-gratia Payments

I tend to agree with Nikki based in part on what Awo said here: " Unfortunately, all the banks' books had been burnt, and MANY (my emphasis) of the people who had savings there didn't have their savings books or their last statement of account..." This implies that there were a few who came forward with proofs and that these did not have any challenges getting their money back fully.

Again, let me reiterate that I would have continued to keep my peace if there was no effort to play with the facts of history on this point.

The other question that is still hanging in suspense is how come there were missing records of account holders in banks situated outside the Eastern Region?

In fact, the questions have been asked and answered, both by myself more than a decade ago, and by Dr. Tim Menekaya (who had his Nigerian savings intact when he returned to Nigeria from Biafra).

If only the Archives would be consulted, we would not be going over the same grounds episodically....

We must remember that Nigerian currency was changed early during the conflict. In fact that was one of the major masterstrokes ascribed to Finance Minister Awolowo.

So there were three sets of Biafra returnees:

(1) those who had monies in Nigerian banks even during the war and never moved some or all of them. Like Menekaya - as he testified - they got all their money back if they had their passbooks and/or could prove their identities. Is there no record of such people, so that it does not look as if absolutely no returning Biafran was treated justly and fairly money-wise?

(2) those who had on them old Nigerian currency caught behind war lines. Remember that there were also "loyal" Nigerians (who did not secede) who were also left holding old currency (for whatever reason) in this same category. What then should have been the old Nigerian currency/new currency exchange rate, and how many total number of people were claimants?

(3) those who had on them either Biafra's currency and/or Biafra Bank accounts denominated in Biafran pounds. With the rush to print "rebel" pounds not backed really by resources, what should have been the recommended old Biafra/new Nigerian pound exchange rate?

My point is fixation should not be on the 20 pounds, but on what the total Nigerian outlay would have been if every adult Biafran returnee had asked for/claimed that amount for himself. In the archives piece, I calculated (if I remember rightly) that it would be about 60 percent of Nigeria's budget or so. (Have we never asked: why 20 pounds? Why not 10 pounds? Why not 50? Would 10,000 pounds per person have been fairer? Or one new Nigerian pound for each old pound, and the same exchange for each Biafra's pound?)

So these questions have been asked and responded to, but not to everyone's satisfaction - or to their knowledge that they were asked.

No I have not. This is also the first time that this question is being raised. It is worth investigating, especially because we all have assumed that this was not the case. Do you have any information yourself to put forward?

Having said this, let me reiterate that my intention was to challenge Kadiri's false claim that post civil war ex-gratia payments were some sort of "social grant" made to "any returnee Biafran who requested for it," rather than what they were - payments in lieu of savings and money left behind by Easterners who fled to the Biafran enclave at the beginning of hostilities.

Frankly, I am awed by Kadiri's boldness in revising historial records and pushing forward new interpretations. Here is another one on ex-gratia payments made by the federal government to returnee account holders from the Eastern Region after the Civil War:

"All the bank operations inside Biafra during the war were null and void and moreover the Biafran currency (pound) was illegal and not tenable anywhere in the world. For almost three years, Biafra was an enclave of starving citizens, therefore, the Biafran pounds were not printed on any real economic activities. It should not be forgotten that Nigeria prosecuted the war without borrowing a farthing from the outside world. Despite that, the federal government could still offer £20 social grant to the liberated Biafrans who requested for it. As of today, less than 30% of Nigerians have bank accounts which was even much more less in 1967-1970. Thus, it is dishonest and fraudulent to pretend as if all Igbo had bank deposit in Nigeria at the end of."

Rather than dispute this claim, allow me to offer what Chief Awolowo himself said on the subject when he was interviewed by a group of journalists at a town hall meeting in Abeokuta in 1983:

"That's what I did, and the case of the money they said was not given back to them, you know during the war all the pounds were looted, they printed Biafran currency notes, which they circulated, at the close of the war some people wanted their Biafran notes to be exchanged for them. Of course I couldn't do that, if I did that the whole country would be bankrupt. We didn't know about Biafran notes and we didn't know on what basis they have printed them, so we refused the Biafran note, but I laid down the principle that all those who had savings in the banks on the eve of the declaration of the Biafran war or Biafra, will get their money back if they could satisfy us that they had the savings there, or the money there. Unfortunately, all the banks's books had been burnt, and many of the people who had savings there didn't have their saving books or their last statement of account, so a panel had to be set up.

I didn't take part in setting up the panel, it was done by the Central Bank and the pertinent officials of the ministry of finance, to look into the matter, and they went carefully into the matter, they took some months to do so, and then make some recommendation which I approved. Go to the archives, all I did was approve, I didn't write anything more than that, I don't even remember the name of any of them who took part. So I did everything in this world to assist our Ibo brothers and sisters during and after the war."

So Mr Kadiri sir, the federal government DID NOT "offer £20 social grant to the liberated Biafrans who requested for it," as falsely claimed. Rather, ex-gratia payments were made ONLY TO those who were able to satisfly a mystery committee set up by the government that they had savings in Nigerian banks prior to the Civil War.

Should we blame Chief Awolowo for the fact that the bank books were burnt and that many of the returnee account holders had lost their savings passbooks? I should not think so. But we can ask questions about issues that remain unclear from his explanations above.

Was the burning of bank records of Biafran returnees a deliberate act? To understand the import of this question, here's another question: Why were ex-gratia payments made to those who had accounts in banks located in other parts of the country, outside the Eastern Region? Whle it is reasonable that bank records in the eastern region could be destroyed during the war, what about bank records in other parts of the country where they also maintained accounts - - in the midwest, west, and north - prior to the Civil War? If these category of bank customers were equally paid ex-gratia of 20 pounds in lieu of their bank savings, does this mean that their records in these places were also burnt? If so, who did the burning and why?

The work of the committee that recommended ex-gratia has continued to be shrouded in secrecy to this day, so much so that Awo had to confess that he could not recall who were its members, and how it determined the criteria used to pay claimants.

I thank Kadiri for trying on this one but he should know that it is not in any doubt that ex-gratia payments (a) rightly neither contemplated nor accommodated account holders from defunct Biafran Banks, and (b) were not made as social grants to just any returnee Biafran who felt like showing up to ask for it.